practical effects vs. cgi

[CTTT]

Why do movies not use practical effects anymore? Some older movies, the practical effects like with Alien and Aliens still look really good. By comparison some of the modern CGI shots today even with superior technology compared to 40+ years ago looks bad and probably would have been better with practical effects.

[ChrisIII]

Many still do.

Despite all their other issues, the SW sequel trilogy does use a lot of practical effects (although there are still plenty of CG elements, especially the ship stuff) after the criticism of the prequel trilogy.

A lot of the creatures were practical puppets or costumes. Force ghost Yoda was realized as a puppet built from the mold of the original. Even Maz (CG in the first two sequels) was a puppet in ROS, and the underground snake. Of course there's Babu Frik.

[CliffHanger2]

Not really sure. Maybe it's easier to undercut cgi guys with cheap pay. Agree that those old Alien movies look better than alot of modern cgi stuff.

[krazijoe]

Why do movies not use practical effects anymore? Some older movies, the practical effects like with Alien and Aliens still look really good. By comparison some of the modern CGI shots today even with superior technology compared to 40+ years ago looks bad and probably would have been better with practical effects.

Alien/Aliens used darkness to cover up a lot of their "effects". The one thing I hated about both movies is how dark it was in a lot of the scenes...

[ChrisIII]

Yeah, there's some deleted scenes where the Alien can be seen more and move and it looks really goofy.

JAWS as well was going to show more of the Shark in the film's first half (For instance we would see most of it's head almost movie-poster style when Alex Kitner is killed) but the malfunctions led to Spielberg going with the "less is more" shots which work much better.

I'd say the weakest effect in the whole film is at the end where we see the whole suit outside the escape pod.

[James Cameron]

Alien/Aliens used darkness to cover up a lot of their "effects". The one thing I hated about both movies is how dark it was in a lot of the scenes...

Are there any specific scenes that you remember being too dark? I feel like a lot of those issues were touched up in the remasters/restorations.

[Grunty]

Less is more, but more has it's benefit when it's used in well thought measures.

In general both practical effects and CGI have their advantages and disadvantages and can come in different forms of quality.

The best outcome is often the result of applying them correctly and convincing the audience to let their fantasy play into the story and accept that the obvious computer generated image or the rocks made of paper and placed infront of an obviously painted sunset are representing another world they are experiencing partial in their minds.

Many still do.

Despite all their other issues, the SW sequel trilogy does use a lot of practical effects (although there are still plenty of CG elements, especially the ship stuff) after the criticism of the prequel trilogy.

A lot of the creatures were practical puppets or costumes. Force ghost Yoda was realized as a puppet built from the mold of the original. Even Maz (CG in the first two sequels) was a puppet in ROS, and the underground snake. Of course there's Babu Frik.

Indeed. One can be suprised when watching making ofs and realize just how many practical effects and props are still used.

Props and practical effects also greatly help the actors in getting or stayin their roles. Which is also why costuming can often involve elements that the viewer might never see, but the actor know about while wearing them.

[Username taken]

Many still do.

Despite all their other issues, the SW sequel trilogy does use a lot of practical effects (although there are still plenty of CG elements, especially the ship stuff) after the criticism of the prequel trilogy.

A lot of the creatures were practical puppets or costumes. Force ghost Yoda was realized as a puppet built from the mold of the original. Even Maz (CG in the first two sequels) was a puppet in ROS, and the underground snake. Of course there's Babu Frik.

Exactly this. A lot of movies still use practical effects.

I don't really have a preference but ultimately whatever effects are used should be convincing.

[choptop]

Yeah, there's some deleted scenes where the Alien can be seen more and move and it looks really goofy.

JAWS as well was going to show more of the Shark in the film's first half (For instance we would see most of it's head almost movie-poster style when Alex Kitner is killed) but the malfunctions led to Spielberg going with the "less is more" shots which work much better.

I'd say the weakest effect in the whole film is at the end where we see the whole suit outside the escape pod.

I don't think that looks that bad.

[HollowSage]

Why do movies not use practical effects anymore?

This is simply wrong. Practical effects are still used all the time and largely in conjunction with cgi. They are not opposing forces. Each one has its place and when used properly work well together.

It’s not a contest.

[Zero Hunter]

Man I am so tired of people always saying "well practical effects always just look better than CGI wah wah wah". Bullshit. Bad practical effects can look just as bad if not worse than CGI. It all comes down to how well they are done. That and the price. Would you rather have a movie with 2 really good practical effects or a movie with 20 decent CGI effects?

[CTTT]

what are some examples of modern movies that use practical effects?

[James Cameron]

what are some examples of modern movies that use practical effects?

To me the issue is that digital effects are mainly used now as a way of cheapening process of designing special effects, since it can be done quicker with less effort for less money the "art" of it becomes nonexistent. That's why most CGI sucks nowadays and that makes it hard to appreciate the few practical effects there are.

[HollowSage]

what are some examples of modern movies that use practical effects?

Top Gun Maverick. GOTG 3. I mean it’s a silly question because every movie, with the exception of animation, uses some degree of practical. Some things are easier with practical and some things are easier with cgi. When it’s done really well you can’t tell where one ends and the other begins.

Take a car chase for example. You only need a few real stunt cars. The rest of the cars in traffic can be done digitally. Sure you could do a car chase through a busy city with all real cars and real pedestrians but why go through all that complexity when you can just include digital cars and pedestrians. No one is paying attention to anything but the car being chased and the cars doing the chasing.

[HollowSage]

To me the issue is that digital effects are mainly used now as a way of cheapening process of designing special effects, since it can be done quicker with less effort for less money the "art" of it becomes nonexistent. That's why most CGI sucks nowadays and that makes it hard to appreciate the few practical effects there are.

Where does this idea come from? CGI can often be more expensive than practical effects depending on what you want done. It’s not automatically the cheaper option. Often the advantage of cgi is not the cost but the flexibility it provides. It allows directors to make changes easier if they don’t like how a stunt or sequence went.

It’s also not easy. The fact that cgi artists use a computer does not mean that they are not still artists. It involves a lot more than just clicking a button. It takes time and talent the same as any other art form. Cgi artists deserve the same respect as any others.